Greetings,

Without getting into any speculation regarding the source of
the names for Disston's second quality lines, as listed by
Pete Taran:

No. 00: Jackson
No. 0:  T.Taylor
No. 1:  C. Bishop
No. 3:  Brown's

I thought it might be interesting to simply list the dates for
these Disston models, along with the dates for firms with
names which might suggest Disston was trading on their name
recognition. All information taken from Erv. Schaffer's
_Hand-Saw Makers of North America_.

1813-      Wm. Jackson & Co  Monroe NY (short lived?)
1860       Taylor Brothers    Philadelphia, PA (one year?)
1865-1872  I.S. & C.N Brown  Providence, RI
1865-1936  Brown's model (Disston)
1865-1923  Jackson model (Disston)
1865-1923  C. Bishop model (Disston)
1870-1871  Henry C. Brown & Co.  Baltimore, MD
1882-1899  George H. bishop & Co. Cincinnati, OH
1887-1923  T. Taylor model (Disston)

If Disston was trading on George Bishop's name when he introduced
the C. Bishop line, he was amazingly prescient. In two cases,
he would have been trading on names of short-lived firms which
had long been out of business. Only in the case of the Brown's
model might there be any question, and I think it's arguable.

I don't see much of a pattern in this data to indicate that
Disston was trading on name recognition of other firms with
his second quality lines.

Don McConnell
Knox County, Ohio

    Don did his research and reported:
> 
> I thought it might be interesting to simply list the dates for
> these Disston models, along with the dates for firms with
> names which might suggest Disston was trading on their name
> recognition. All information taken from Erv. Schaffer's
> _Hand-Saw Makers of North America_.
>
> 1813-      Wm. Jackson & Co  Monroe NY (short lived?)
> 1860       Taylor Brothers    Philadelphia, PA (one year?)
> 1865-1872  I.S. & C.N Brown  Providence, RI
> 1865-1936  Brown's model (Disston)
> 1865-1923  Jackson model (Disston)
> 1865-1923  C. Bishop model (Disston)
> 1870-1871  Henry C. Brown & Co.  Baltimore, MD
> 1882-1899  George H. bishop & Co. Cincinnati, OH
> 1887-1923  T. Taylor model (Disston)
>

    Thanks, Don.  That is exactly what we needed.  I'm glad you could
provide data when others went strictly on hero worship when they most likely
had hard data at hand.

    I got the earful I expected from Dr. D8.  He started off by calling me
insane for even questioning Disston's reputation, and things went downhill
from there.  I did get two things from our passionate exchange.

    Tom pointed out that I was woefully inconsistent in my use of the name
Disston to mean both Henry and the company.  I had intendend all along to
mean the company, as I didn't know who was involved in selecting the  names
and if it happened before or after Henry's death in 1878.

    He also thinks that my writing style appeared more strident than I
intended it to.  To clarify, I NEVER said:

        Disston (either the company or the man) ripped off anyone
        Disston tried to "put other companies under"
        Henry rode around in black helicopters
        Henry was the Don of a mafia family
        Accused them of some skullduggery conspiracy
        They were involved in patent theft
        Generally said they were evil
        Put forth a theory on how or why they did pick their brandnames
        They in FACT did misuse other's brandnames

    What I DID say was that if Disston was using his competitor's names on
his products (and assuming they were not party to it), than that is fishy. I
don't see how that simple statement could be interpreted as accusing Disston
of an evil conspiricy.   It merely calls into question their selection of
brandnames, and is obvious from they way it is stated that the assumptions
needed to be researched.  The data above shows that there is no issue with
Bishop and Brown.

    I was hoping all along that this could be explored dispassionatly, and
hope we still can.  I still think it worth discussing the Jackson and Taylor
names.  The Jackson and Co. saw was jumped on as the target for disproving
any questionable use of another's name.  However, I was thinking the more
likely confusion would be with Spear and Jackson of England.  Also, I
considered Taylor Bros of Sheffield a more likely candidate for confusion.
I don't know the working dates of these makers, nor the history of their
importation into the US, but assume they were early and that they made it
across the pond.  Is there data to prove these dates?  If they did precede
Disston's use, would it be out of line to question why these brands were
used by Disston when other well-known sawmakers were using them?  Like I
said, I hope we can discuss this without sinking into the type of morass
that most call in shows seem to.  Some claim to be taught by Mom and Pop to
seek the truth and let the chips fall where they might, but have a habit of
using childish taunting whenever someone has an opinion opposite to their's.
This really is an opportunity to do some research and talk about an
interesting tool topic

    In regards to any speculation regarding the source of the names for
Disston's second quality lines, those interested in data may be interested
to know that in the approximately 225 patents I looked at today that have a
relation to Disston, there is one to Thomas Taylor, none to anyone named
Bishop, none to anyone named Brown, none to anyone with Jackson as a
surname, quite a few to Disston family members, a few to John Smith, Harry
Smith shows up as witness a few times, but William Smith never appears.  If
the second line saws were named for faithful employees, it would have to be
for non-patentees.  Which is very possible as I've never seen a patent to
Mr. Hart and Stanley honored him with the famous SweetHart mark. Still could
be interesting to explore how the Disston company selected their second line
names.  The likes of Quaker and Keystone seem obvious, but what about the
personal names?

Regards,
Steve

Hi Pete & All,

Pete says he hasn't seen any black helicopters today. As a former spook
agency employee, I'll suggest that any he ever has seen were being
operated imporperly.

Best Wishes,
Bob

Steve Reynolds wrote:

>...        I still think it worth discussing the Jackson and Taylor
>names.  The Jackson and Co. saw was jumped on as the target for disproving
>any questionable use of another's name.  However, I was thinking the more
>likely confusion would be with Spear and Jackson of England.  Also, I
>considered Taylor Bros of Sheffield a more likely candidate for confusion.
>I don't know the working dates of these makers, nor the history of their
>importation into the US, but assume they were early and that they made it
>across the pond.  Is there data to prove these dates?  If they did precede
>Disston's use, would it be out of line to question why these brands were
>used by Disston when other well-known sawmakers were using them? ...

I don't think anyone would argue the possibility of confusion when
two firms use the same family name. So, the  discussion seems to
boil down to whether Henry Disston's (and/or his company's) intent
was to benefit by creating such confusion concerning significant
British competitors.

Well, attempting to discuss intent is to enter into very treacherous
territory. At best, it may be possible to get some idea  of the
likelihood of this implied intent by looking at the overall picture
provided by some of the data which Steve requested.

Let's consider data from Roberts' check-list of Sheffield saw makers
(compiled from directory entries) for all four of the names chosen by
Disston for the second quality lines.

BISHOP

      Doesn't appear in Roberts' check-list.

BROWN

      Brown, Charles                -1854 - 1865-
      Brown, Henry & Sons (dealers) -1879 - 1884-
      Brown, William                -1841 - 1852-

JACKSON

      Jackson, William              -1856 - 1900-
      Jackson, Newton               -1865-
      Spear & Jackson               -1825 - 1900-

TAYLOR

      Taylor, Edward                -1828 - 1839-
      Taylor, Joseph & John         -1841 - 1847-
      Taylor Brothers               -1849 - 1900-

Seems it would be difficult to argue that Disston would have
viewed Charles Brown as a major competitor. And Henry Brown &
Sons came after Disston began using the name. In which case,
only two of the names, Jackson and Taylor, would seem to have
the possibility of creating confusion surrounding significant
competitors.

Were there no other significant competitors as possible targets
if the intent was to create this kind of confusion? Hardly - here
are a few other possibilities from Roberts' check-list of
Sheffield saw makers:

      Beardshw, Jonathan & Son      -1825 - 1900-
      Brittain, Samuel Swann & Co.  -1841 - 1900-
      Drabble & Sanderson           -1825 - 1900-
      Eadon, Moses                  -1837 - 1900-
      Groves, Richard & Sons        -1825 - 1900-
      Ibbotson, Richard             -1839 - 1900-
      Ibbotson Brothers             -1828 - 1900-
      Kenyon, John C. & Co.         -1823 - 1900-
      Kenyon, Ellison & Co.         -1839 - 1900-
      Moulson Brothers              -1828 - 1884-
      Newbould, Samuel & Son        -1814 - 1900-
      Peace, Joseph & Co.           -1849 - 1900-
      Sorby, John & Son             -1821 - 1884-
      Sorby, Robert & Son           -1849 - 1900-
      Spencer, Matthias & Son       -1825 - 1900-
      Turner, Thomas & Co.          -1841 - 1900-

*If* the intent was to gain some benefit by creating name
confusion around significant competitors, Disston did a pretty
lousy job of it. Especially when you consider the American
scene as well. To the extent you can infer intent from this
overall pattern, my take is that the likelihood is pretty low.

Don McConnell
Knox County, Ohio